Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 9 - Evidence - Meeting of October 22, 2009
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 22, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 8:07 a.m. to study the current state and future of Canada's forest sector.
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. I see we have a quorum and I declare the meeting in session.
[Translation]
I would like to welcome the witnesses to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I am Senator Mockler from New Brunswick and I am the chair of the committee.
[English]
On behalf of the committee, I welcome Mr. Tom Rosser and Mr. Bob Jones. The deputy chair, Senator Fairbairn, is from Alberta, and I ask the other members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Mercer: I am Senator Terry Mercer from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: I am Senator Poulin and I represent Northern Ontario in the Senate.
[English]
Senator Plett: I am Senator Don Plett from Landmark, Manitoba.
Senator Finley: Doug Finley from Ontario's South Coast.
Senator Eaton: I am Nicky Eaton and from metropolitan Toronto.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: I am Senator Rivard and I represent Quebec City.
[English]
The Chair: The committee is continuing its study on the current state and future of Canada's forest sector. This morning we have the honour to welcome, from Natural Resources Canada, Mr. Tom Rosser, Director General, Policy, Economics and Industry Branch, Canadian Forest Service; and Bob Jones, Industry and Trade Division, Canadian Forest Service.
Thank you, gentlemen, for accepting our invitation to appear today. When we look at the present situation in the forestry sector across Canada, you have an important role to play and we have an important role to play.
I would like to invite you, Mr. Rosser, to make your presentation. For your information, it will be followed by a question-and-answer session.
Tom Rosser, Director General, Policy, Economics and Industry Branch, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada: Thank you, chair. We appreciate the invitation and opportunity to talk to you specifically about a program that we manage called the North American Wood First Initiative. I understand that some of the partners with whom we work have testified before the committee, and hopefully we can help build upon their remarks and help enrich your understanding of the program. We will also touch on some of the related initiatives that we manage at Natural Resources Canada related to the wood products sector.
The North American Wood First Initiative is one of a suite of programs that we manage whose objective is to expand and diversify markets for Canadian wood products. Why does the Government of Canada see a role for itself in doing that? There are a couple of reasons, most significant being that Canada is, by a considerable margin, the largest exporter of solid wood products in the world and, therefore, we have an interest in seeing markets for wood products globally increase and grow.
As its name implies, the North American Wood First Initiative is focused on markets in North America. We are also active trying to develop markets overseas. For many years, the Government of Canada has tried to grow markets for overseas markets for wood, in Japan and Europe, in particular, and those are both significant offshore markets. More recently, we have been focused on emerging markets, such as South Korea and China. We have already seen significant growth in exports to those markets. We see very significant long-term potential.
Wood is different than most other natural resource products. If you were to look at pulp and paper consumption, for example, and if you look at per capita consumption and per capita income in a country, you would see the two were closely related. That suggests the consumption of the product is a function of a country's income, which, in turn, implies that there is not a lot of opportunity to grow markets for that particular product through promotional efforts.
Wood is different. If you look at per capita consumption in countries around the world, it varies widely from one country to the next. That is a consequence of the fact that wood is used primarily as a construction material and different countries have different cultures and traditions for using different materials in their construction methods.
In turn, that means there is an opportunity to grow markets for wood through promotional campaigns, by getting people to think about using wood in non-traditional methods. Effectively, with these promotional programs, you are trying to effect cultural change amongst builders, architects and, ultimately, consumers of buildings and building materials. The North American Wood First Initiative is part of that effort.
In a North American context, you would find that by global standards, both Canada and the United States have very high per capita consumption of wood products. However, it is used primarily — I should not say ``exclusively'' — but largely in residential construction. The majority of houses we build in North America are built out of wood; there is relatively little use of wood outside the residential sector for building schools, hospitals, shopping malls and other types of structures.
Canada has a higher per capita wood consumption than the United States. However, even under existing building codes, we see the opportunity to grow that market in North America by encouraging wood use in non-traditional methods and uses. We see an opportunity, not just to grow demand for Canadian wood products, but also to diversify markets.
As I am sure all of you are aware, the residential sector in the United States was at the heart of the global financial crisis. As a result, we see housing construction activity in the United States at its lowest level since the post-World War II period. This year, the expectation is that the U.S. will build about 600,000 housing units. In 2005-06, they were building over 2 million units a year. Therefore, we see this very deep cyclical trough in residential construction activity in the United States, which reinforces the logic of trying to diversify markets for Canadian wood products, both geographically and in terms of end use, to help avoid putting all of our eggs in one basket, if you will.
In terms of the specifics of the North American Wood First Initiative, we prepared a short PowerPoint presentation. I believe it has been distributed to members of the committee. Perhaps we can pick up on slide 3.
The objective of the North American Wood First Initiative is to promote increased use of wood in non-residential construction throughout North America. We do that by working in partnership with a number of different organizations. Provincial governments are often funding partners. We work with industry and a group known as the Binational Softwood Lumber Council, which is an organization that brings together industry leaders from both sides of the Canada-U.S. border on issues of mutual interest. As you might imagine, particularly with respect to our activities in the United States, growing markets for wood products is something in which both Canadian and U.S. producers share an interest. This year, we expect the program will provide about $5.8 million in funding to our various partners in North America.
As I mentioned earlier, the real objective of this program is to effect cultural change; to get people who make decisions with respect to choices of building materials to think about wood in non-traditional applications. This program seeks to do that through a number of means. It supports a network of 24 technical advisers who work on individual projects and provide technical support for people making use of wood.
We organize work with the academic community and organize wood solution seminars that can often attract up to a thousand people involved in the construction industry in one way or another. Those seminars aim to sensitize them, encourage them to think about wood, give them ideas on how it might be used and also give them the tools and technical expertise they need in order to use wood effectively.
On the next page, you will see an overview of an analysis of the potential we are seeking to realize through this program by increasing the use of wood outside of the residential sector. These are numbers for lumber and panels outside of the residential sector in Canada and the U.S., with estimates of the theoretical potential to increase wood use. These numbers are based on the existing building codes, and what we see as a realistic potential. Conservatively, we estimate that the size of that market in dollar terms is $5 billion to $8 billion.
We have in left-hand column the potential increased use of lumber measured in board feet. The North American lumber market total consumption right now is about 43 billion to 45 billion board feet, which is lower than normal. However, it gives you an idea of the size and scope of the potential we see, with the realistic gain in lumber use through these activities being about 6 billion board feet.
One of our partners with the North American Wood First Initiative is an organization called Wood WORKS! Slide 6 gives you a sense of some of their recent activities, working with individual project proponents to try to encourage use of wood. There have been dozens of projects — it says here 55 projects — where they were able to influence material selection.
There is something else worth flagging. The potential we seek to increase the use of wood is given existing building technologies and codes. Natural Resources Canada funds various innovation efforts in the forest sector. I understand that some representatives of FPInnovations have recently testified before this committee.
Part of the funding we provide to that organization is used to look at developing new building products, new building systems and building materials, which can allow expanded opportunities to use wood in different applications. One specific activity spearheaded by FPInnovations has been creating building systems and platforms of greater than four storeys that are built out of wood.
Until a couple of months ago, it was not possible to build a wood building of more than four storeys. Through work headed by FPInnovations, allowance has been made for buildings of up to six storeys to be built out of wood in Canada. One such wood building is currently under construction in Quebec City, and I understand that another is planned in British Columbia.
The market potential we are seeking through these programs is not set in stone. It is a function of regulations, building codes, and technology and the technology and building codes are constantly evolving.
Few things are more effective in motivating people to think about using wood in non-traditional ways than highlighting high-profile buildings. We consider the displaying of such buildings important to our promotional efforts. An exciting example — and I would not be surprised if other witnesses have talked about this with you — is the skating oval in Richmond, B.C., which will host the speed skating events of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. Also on this slide is a photo of the recently completed Vancouver Convention Centre, also a bit of a showcase project for solid wood products.
[Translation]
One of our program partners is CECOBOIS, a Quebec-based company similar in nature to Wood WORKS! that operates elsewhere in Canada. CECOBOIS publishes the newsletter Construire en bois. In addition, this company has negotiated a partnership with the Ordre des Architectes du Québec.
We also work with several Quebec municipalities toward the adoption of resolutions to promote wood use.
Slide 9 shows the CSN building in Quebec City. This is the first six-storey building built of wood in Canada. You will also see a photograph of La Charpenterie in Chicoutimi. This company specializes in the manufacturing of roof trusses and completely rebuilt its factory out of wood.
Another photograph shows the new Faberca plant. This Shawinigan-based company specializes in the manufacturing of prefabricated components and value-added products such as windows.
[English]
Within the U.S., our activities are targeted to those regions of the country where the market potential is seen as greatest, and that includes the Southeastern United States, the north central region as well as California. All of our partners across North America work with the academic community. One will hear that university programs for engineers and architects often give very little focus on the use of wood. Our partners in the United States have worked with 15 different universities to develop two courses of 15 modules each focused specifically on making use of wood in non-residential construction.
Another activity undertaken in the United States, as well as by our Canadian partners elsewhere, is working with roof regulators, where building codes create an impediment to the use of wood. We are working with them to see if that issue can be addressed.
Bob Jones, Director, Industry and Trade Division, Policy, Economics and Industry Branch, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada: The big problems that the wood industry has had trying to enter into the commercial market are really that the engineers and the architects just do not know how to design with wood. There are numerous software packages available for the steel and concrete industries where an architect can call upon these designs to design a building fairly quickly. That is not true in the case of wood where there are few software packages that demonstrate how to put together a shopping centre or a school. One of the things that the North American Wood First Initiative has started to do, not only in the U.S. but also within Canada, is develop these software packages.
The next problem, and Mr. Rosser alluded to it, is that the schools do not teach wood at the university level. Another goal of the program is to try to get wood programs into the university programs. It will take time and will not happen overnight, but we have seen some recognition over the last few years. The new architects and engineers coming out of school with a bit of knowledge of how to use wood are the future of this industry.
Another barrier is the building codes, which Mr. Rosser mentioned. Right now, wood can be used in many instances, but there are some building code problems, in both Canada and the U.S. We are working on trying to change the building codes right through North America so that they are more wood friendly.
Another area of the program is having architect seminars where the architects receive accreditation for attending some of the Wood First solution fairs. A number of WoodWorks! seminars are accredited.
We hope a number of these measures will help create more of a wood culture in the commercial building sector.
Mr. Rosser: One of the most effective means of getting people to look carefully at wood is through the showcasing buildings. In Canada's Economic Action Plan, we received $10 million over the next two years to help us partner in large-scale wood demonstration projects in overseas markets as well as in Canada. We see that as a real opportunity to help draw attention to wood, to help advance some of our wood promotion efforts. We are close to concluding partnerships for a number of projects in China and South Korea. We also have a process underway to identify domestic wood demonstration projects and hope to have partnerships in place by late this year.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: I would like to start by thanking our witnesses for their excellent presentation. The program that you outlined to us is very important at a time when the crisis in the forestry sector is affecting all companies in Canada. In what year was this initiative launched?
Mr. Rosser: In 2007.
Senator Poulin: So the program has been in existence for two years.
Mr. Rosser: Correct. We have just closed out our third fiscal year. Initially, the program was set to last two years. However, funding was renewed at the start of the year in the most recent federal budget.
Senator Poulin: So, you are saying that the program has been around for two years, and if I understand correctly, the main objective is market diversification and promotion of wood use by partners. However, you also say you want to bring about a change of culture.
Are these long-term, rather than short-term objectives?
Mr. Rosser: Obviously we believe that there are benefits to be reaped in the short term. We can promote wood use in the case of certain individual projects. However, it is clear that when we work with universities to develop courses on wood use, the benefits will be more long term. So then, many of the expected program benefits will come over the long term.
Senator Poulin: Thank you. May I ask two more questions, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: Yes, senator.
Senator Poulin: How has the steel industry responded to your program?
Mr. Rosser: I have not heard other industries comment on this program. Perhaps Mr. Jones has something further to add.
[English]
Mr. Jones: We have not had many comments from other industries, particularly the steel and concrete industries. Although we are always cognizant of the fact that, although our specific program objective is to promote wood, there are other commodities in Canada that are important to the building industry.
We have received a couple of letters in the last few months because we have had more awareness of this program. Other industries have asked our minister, ``Why not us?'' ``Why not programs for our industry as well?'' There have been a few concerns.
Senator Poulin: If I were in another industry I would say, ``We are having problems, too.'' Among other things, this committee agrees that wood is one of our greatest natural resources and it is extremely important that the government play an active role in restoring the pride in this industry.
You talked about the building codes and it is very important that we come back to that. I take for granted that the decisions that were made regarding building codes in the past were good decisions based on security issues for buildings over four storeys.
[Translation]
Questions arose in the past about the safety of wood construction in buildings over four storeys high. What has changed about wood manufacturing so that the safety of buildings of this height is no longer an issue?
Mr. Rosser: I will try and answer the question and perhaps Bob may want to add something. One must take into account the fact that technology changes. Natural Resources Canada and the federal government have invested rather heavily in innovation in the forestry sector.
New products and new building systems are being developed. Sometimes, there are sound reasons why building codes prohibit the use of wood, for safety considerations. Other times, these codes do not recognize the properties of wood that have already been proven.
With respect to six-storey buildings, FPInnovations has recently developed new building systems and new building ceiling systems. They have been able to demonstrate to the construction industry regulatory authorities that wood is safe and poses no risk. As a result of their efforts, a six-storey wood building is currently under construction in Quebec City.
Senator Poulin: I have one last question, Mr. Chair. Your annual operating budget is $5.8 million. You said something about a budget of $10 million. Is that $10 million in addition to the $5.8 million?
Mr. Rosser: The $10 million are funds earmarked for demonstration projects. This is over and above the funding for this program.
Senator Poulin: In terms of federal programs, $5.8 million is not really a large budget. The forestry crisis is a major problem in our country. I know that in Northern Ontario, communities have been hard hit by the crisis. What arguments do you intend to raise to secure an increase in your program's budget?
Mr. Rosser: You have to remember that this is not the only NRCan program that targets the forestry sector. We have several programs focusing on market development and innovation. In addition to our programs that directly target the forestry sector, we recently announced a new program targeting the pulp and paper sector. Several other programs have been developed by other government departments to assist the forestry sector, communities and workers. This is certainly not the only program targeting the forestry sector.
We feel that these activities are adequately funded. Our priority truly was to have the opportunity to forge partnerships for wood demonstration projects and new funding has been earmarked for that purpose.
Senator Poulin: Mr. Rosser and Mr. Jones, could you possibly send the committee a summary of all of these programs, some of which, as you say, are offered by other departments, that are designed to help Canada's forestry sector?
Mr. Rosser: I believe we could.
Senator Poulin: I think that would help us tremendously with our research.
The Chair: That is an excellent point, Senator Poulin.
[English]
Mr. Rosser, we would like to see the breakdown of the $40 million over two years for NRC to market innovative forestry projects internationally. Also in relation to the $10 million for NRC in respect to the use of wood for construction in targeted offshore markets, we would like to have it related to the number of pilot or ongoing projects you have. Also, when we look at the billion dollar Community Adjustment Fund, it would help us understand the impact on your department to have that information because we intend to look at that as part of our report.
Mr. Jones: All of our programs are cost shared with provinces and industry. The roughly $6 million that we referred to is matched by provinces and industry. Effectively it is a $12-million program.
Senator Eaton: When you are talking about the $5.8 million, do you engage with Environment Canada? We have heard that building with wood is building green. I would have thought they would be there with you. Do they promote the fact that wood is green in their promotions?
Mr. Rosser: We work with Environment Canada and other federal ministries. It is true that there is a fairly robust body of analysis suggesting that on a life cycle basis wood has some environmental and greenhouse gas benefits relative to other building materials.
Senator Eaton: We have heard that the benefits are huge. We see wonderful things across this large country of ours. To pick up on a point that Senator Finley made last week, no one seems to be talking to one another. With the amount of wood Canada has and given what the environmental people are telling us about wood, I would have thought that it would be a natural marriage for Natural Resources to get together with Environment Canada.
Mr. Rosser: Certainly, we talk to one another. For example, in international climate change negotiations, we have a close working relationship with Environment Canada on related issues on how to account for wood embodied in forests and forest products. This is at the crux of some of these arguments around the carbon and environmental benefits of wood products. We talk to one another and have a working relationship with Environment Canada and other federal agencies with an interest in this area.
Senator Eaton: You do not necessarily promote wood as a construction material.
Mr. Rosser: Not per se.
Mr. Jones: We have been more active with the Department of Public Works here in Ottawa. They are the keepers, if you will, of procurement for buildings within the federal system. We have had a number of meetings with them over the last two years to sensitize them to the environmental advantages of wood. We have conducted a number of green building tours for federal departments to show them the buildings that are made out of wood around the City of Ottawa. We have brought a number of experts to talk about the green attributes of wood.
Senator Eaton: Canadians hear about how we must clean up our act and make changes. We talk about garbage, windmills and many other things. However, we do not seem to talk about a resource that we have so much of. That is a shame.
Public Works in Ottawa is wonderful. How much does the average contractor hear of the new developments in wood, that he should be building in wood and that he could make a difference? Mayor Miller in Toronto, instead of concentrating on garbage, should be advising Torontonians to use wood. All the mayors across the country should be doing that. You are doing many things, but it seems to be very much in silos.
Mr. Jones: There is a sustainable building coalition that consists of industry, a number of provincial governments and the federal government. We are the federal representative. You are absolutely correct. This message has to get out there. There has been some common messaging developed by this coalition. Municipalities are one of the targets. You heard from the Wood WORKS! people a couple nights ago. Marianne Berube from Northern Ontario is doing an excellent job through the Wood WORKS! program, which is funded in part through the federal government. Part of their action plan is to get out the wood message to the municipalities. Over the last few years, they have been successful in having some of the small villages adopt a building with wood ordinance in their jurisdiction.
Senator Eaton: We had Ms. Berube here, who was very interesting. However, I find this to be confusing. Again, this comes from having a large country and not everyone talking to one another. Ms. Berube came with Mr. Peter Moonen. I asked Mr. Moonen why he did not want to promote a wood first program even to the point of having legislation state that a certain percentage of wood be used in each new building. He said they do not want to do that because they do not have the expertise to do that promotion. This is why I find this to be confusing. It would be great if there were one voice. It would be great if you all had the same message.
Mr. Rosser: I take your point. Perhaps, you got a sense of that when Ms. Berube and Mr. Moonen were here. We have some very energetic people promoting wood and talking to municipalities. We feel that through people like that, we are making inroads with key target groups.
Is it as visible as it could be or should be? Perhaps not. However, there are efforts under way. Has it reached the broader kind of public consciousness? We are confident that we are making progress. With any kind of promotional campaign, there is always more you can do.
On the issue of legislating, the philosophy of this program and all of our promotional efforts has been to get people to use wood because they are excited about it and want to use it. From a standpoint of promoting wood, the worse thing that can happen is that someone uses it and has a bad experience. That tarnishes the reputation of the material and can dissuade others from trying to use wood in non-traditional methods.
Our approach through this and other programs has been to educate people and to give them the tools they need to use wood well. That is why this program and others put a lot of emphasis on having technical advisers to ensure that those who use wood have the resources they need to use it properly and effectively to have a positive experience. We see that as a key element to long-term promotional efforts.
Senator Eaton: I continually feel frustrated because all these wonderful efforts are not seen by the public at large. They do not see the Art Gallery of Ontario. The person walking into the skating rink in Richmond is not likely to know that the roof is made of wood and that he could use wood in the construction of his next home. It seems that this idea has not gotten off the ground from the average person's point of view.
Mr. Rosser: It is probably not to the extent that we would like. However, we feel that we can make progress through very public buildings like the Richmond Olympic Oval, where wood is very visible. It is a long-term endeavour. Has it reached the consciousness of average Canadians? It has clearly not to the extent that would be ideal.
Senator Mercer: Senator Finley commented about the silos and one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. We continue to see this not only within NRCan and Environment Canada, but also through many other government departments. I am afraid it is the frustration in this place. We continue to try to break that down.
You talked about British Columbia and Quebec, in particular, making some progress in modifying building codes to allow construction of buildings in wood over four storeys. Are there other provinces in this cycle? Have they started to make that cultural shift we are talking about, namely, to allow wood to be used in buildings higher than three storeys?
Mr. Jones: The adoption of new building codes in British Columbia and Quebec is a relatively recent phenomenon. I know there is movement in Alberta because it has close connections with British Columbia. I have not heard from any of the other provinces, but it is a snowball effect. Once one province is doing it, I think another province will see that it can be done, and will want to follow suit. Aside from Alberta, I am not aware of any of the other provinces.
Senator Mercer: Is it Natural Resources Canada's role to take these good examples from British Columbia and Quebec and actively promote them to the other provinces? Alberta is a good example; that province will soon have an abundance of dead wood once the pine beetles come around the mountains. Alberta has an incentive to do something with all of that wood. The rest of our country is covered in forests and there should be more promotion. It seems that NRCan should be using the good examples from British Columbia and Quebec helping the other provinces to get to that level of wood use.
You indicated that the United States is working with 15 universities to help with that cultural shift. Where are we in Canada with respect to our engineering and architectural schools? Do we have active programs? Is NRCan promoting programs at the architectural and engineering schools across the country so that the young men and women coming out of those schools are thinking about wood and not just steel and concrete?
Mr. Rosser: Through the North American Wood First Initiative and our Canadian partners, there is a robust academic outreach to that program. Another way to draw attention to the possibilities for using wood is that our sponsors will sponsor award dinners to draw attention to the possibilities of using wood in construction. Some awards go to architectural and engineering students who have done, in the course of their studies, innovative things with wood.
Mr. Jones: In addition to the wood first program, a network of universities is working in conjunction with FPInnovations to develop new building solutions. Part of that is the universities and being able to train the university students within the partnering university.
The University of New Brunswick is very much engaged in looking at a product called cross-laminated timber that has been used in Europe to construct a nine-storey wood building. The University of New Brunswick is the lead Canadian university, through the NSERC program, in promoting that particular material. FPInnovations has very good ties with universities in Quebec, specifically, Laval, which has an active wood engineering school as well as UBC with their Centre for Advanced Wood Processing.
I agree that we must do more of this. We have done some of it through a couple of our programs, but we see that the universities are key in trying to nurture and develop the future architects to ensure they have the ability and tools to design with wood.
Senator Mercer: Of course, UNB has a great advantage in that they have a school of forestry.
You mentioned in your presentations that there were 24 technical advisers. Who are they? Who has access to them, and what is their role as technical advisers?
Mr. Jones: These folks have been hired and are made up of a combination of engineers who have worked for various forest products companies across the country and in the U.S. To the program's benefit, we have been able to hire engineers that have become available due to the economic downturn. We also have architects experienced in using wood.
Through the WoodWORKS! program, these technical advisers run a website and a number of seminars. They provide internet advice and give one-on-one consultation services with potential specifiers who want to build a wood building, but do not know how to do it or which tools to use. These advisers go to their specific regions, give seminars, have one-on-one meetings and transfer information to potential builders. That is their prime role.
Senator Mercer: My final question is parochial because it affects my home province tremendously. Is NRCan researching how to find new uses and new markets for pulp?
Mr. Rosser: I do not know that there is an exact parallel in terms of markets on the pulp side. Through other partnerships and programs, we support environmental reputation work related to the solid wood and pulp and paper industry. By that, I mean working with foreign governments, major buyers of forest products around the world to communicate messages about Canada's world leading record with respect to sustainable forest management and sustainability practices in the forestry industry. That is one way we support market development for pulp and paper products.
I have talked on a number of occasions about our relationship with FPInnovations and our support for innovation in the forest sector. Part of that pertains to building and wood products, but a major component of it centres on emerging technologies in the pulp and paper industry. As an example, one could take a traditional pulp mill and produce new, non-traditional products through bio-refining — and new market opportunities for the pulp and paper sector. Those are some of our efforts more pertinent to that segment of the forest products industry.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: You mentioned during your presentation that the Quebec firm CECOBOIS has recommended the adoption of resolutions to promote the use of wood in the construction of public buildings. You said that a dozen or so municipalities had come on board. Without naming them, can you tell me if they are some of the largest municipalities in Quebec?
Mr. Rosser: As I recall, yes, they are. And I can supply you with a list of these municipalities.
Senator Rivard: That is not necessary, because I was simply prefacing my question. You will see where I am going with this. There are approximately 2,300 municipalities in Quebec, as well as two municipal organizations. The first one is called the Union des municipalités du Québec, while the name of the second one escapes me. Would it not be a good idea to contact these municipal organizations and encourage them to adopt resolutions and set an example?
I see that advertising is getting more aggressive. Several weeks ago, we invited the Dean of the Faculty of Forestry at Laval University to testify and he gave an excellent presentation. I saw some of his advertisements in the newspapers and each week the major Quebec papers contain advertisements about wood.
The people who designed the ads used well-known sports figures, artists, engineers and businessmen. This positive initiative should begin to produce some results shortly.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the four provinces most affected by the softwood lumber crisis are Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario and New Brunswick. Quebec is not the only province affected. The others also need to launch campaigns to promote wood.
Each province has municipal organizations and I think an organization like yours could work to promote awareness and encourage municipalities to adopt resolutions promoting the use of wood. As for the impediments to wood use, you mentioned provincially regulated building codes.
Does Quebec have its own separate building code? What about the other provinces?
If I am not mistaken, the building code comes under provincial jurisdiction. Can you tell me if the building code governing the use of wood in construction falls under provincial or federal jurisdiction?
Mr. Rosser: I will try and answer your questions and perhaps Bob can elaborate further. I am not an expert on building codes, but as I understand it, we have a national model code developed by the federal government, but regulated by the provinces. The provinces decide whether or not to abide by the model code or by the national model code.
Senator Rivard: As a government, it is our job to convince the people responsible for the code to amend it to give wood a chance, especially if it has been proven that the properties of wood are comparable to those of steel and have certain benefits from an environmental standpoint.
I have one last question. Each time a presentation is made, we hear about beautifully constructed wood structures, such as the Vancouver Congress Centre or the Olympic Oval. If you read the newspapers, you will have noted that the mayor of Quebec City is trying to promote such programs. If a new coliseum is built, I can assure you that we will push for wood to be used if possible in the construction of this building. Problems could come up with the roof and, during performances, the weight of the equipment is a major constraint. However, we will push for wood to be used, wherever possible, in the construction of this facility that will be used approximately 200 days a year by between 15,000 and 18,000 people. It would be an excellent showcase for the wood industry.
Mr. Rosser: Regarding the use of wood, particularly in Quebec, there is an organization in the province called Coalition bois Québec which brings together not only wood producers, but environmental groups, universities and researchers. The coalition's objective is to promote the environmental benefits of wood use. We are not directly involved in the coalition's efforts. We are also seeing that British Columbia and Quebec are the only two provinces that are making an effort to directly promote the use of wood in provincially funded construction projects. We do not play a direct role in this either. However, I have to say that it would have been impossible to have policies like that in place five or ten years ago.
Through the efforts that have been made to promote awareness of wood use among architects and engineers, provinces and municipalities believe that the use of wood could be made mandatory in certain instances. I believe that indirectly, programs such as the one we are discussing here this morning have made decisions like that possible.
Regarding the impact of the forestry sector in Canada, each province's forestry industry makes a significant contribution to the economy. Unless I am mistaken, the sector has the biggest economic impact in New Brunswick and British Columbia. The forestry industry is also important to Ontario and Quebec. From coast to coast, the industry is very important to the Canadian economy.
[English]
Mr. Jones, do you have anything to add regarding the senator's questions?
Mr. Jones: I concur that the message is really important. Quebec has enlisted a number of celebrities, if you will, across the province to help get their ``touch wood'' message out to the people of the province. They have also worked closely with the environmentalists, the non-governmental organizations and they have enlisted Greenpeace to help push out their messages. They have used business people.
I agree wholeheartedly that this needs to be done and Quebec is probably a model right now that we need to be focusing on in order for other provinces to put out a similar message.
Senator Fairbairn: In your presentation, you talked about the connections that you have had in the United States, which is an obvious thing we would be doing with our neighbour, as much as we could. You also talk about your new initiatives.
When you think of communist China and South Korea, could you give us an idea of what, exactly, you are connecting them with? I am interested in both cases, but China is certainly a large ``door.''
Mr. Rosser: Through a separate program called Canada Wood, for some time we have had promotional efforts in a number of target markets around the world. We are particularly excited about South Korea and China.
The parallel to the North American Wood First Initiative is that we are trying to effect cultural change. In both South Korea and China, there is relatively little culture of building with wood, so we are trying to change perceptions of the material and get people to think of wood as a material that can be used to construct high-quality buildings. There are demonstration projects. You want people to film soap operas in wood-frame buildings and that kind of thing to change the image of wood that people in those markets have.
It tends to be long-term work because you are talking about cultural change. We are certainly seeing in the trade data the benefits of our efforts in those markets. Since 2005, as I recall, our exports to South Korea are up by around 20 per cent and over 100 per cent to China.
While they still remain small markets in relation to the United States — which still represents about three-quarters of our lumber exports — they are growing rapidly. Obviously, they have tremendous long-term potential. We are excited about the possibilities. Already, the volumes of exports to those markets translate into several hundred jobs at sawmills across Canada. The volumes we are seeing going into those markets are already significant, but we see the potential for them to grow substantially in time.
Mr. Jones: The programs we started in China and Korea a number of years ago were largely geared to changing the culture. However, to change the culture, we have to start working with the building codes. In China, we have had quite a bit of success having wood recognized in the timber design code. Prior to our work there five years ago, there was no recognition of wood whatsoever in the building codes. We were quite surprised to learn there were all kinds of building codes in China. There was a building code for timber construction; there was a building code for quality design; there was a building code for fire. We have methodically worked through the system to try to get wood recognized in all of these building codes.
China is complicated. There is a national building code but there are also municipal building codes, which is not unlike our Canadian system. However, we have been working in Shanghai over the last couple of years and the Shanghai municipal building code will be promulgated in the next week or two and it has an entire chapter on using wood.
We see the building codes as the cornerstone of trying to get into a new market. As part of the program, we have a number of people in China and Korea who actually go out and have seminars and train builders on how to use wood. The biggest problem in China, for instance, is that the builders just do not know how to construct with wood.
We call it the Canada wood college, and that is what has been implemented in Shanghai. The builders go through a six-week to eight-week course where they learn how to build with wood. Then we have programs after to teach the inspectors within China or Korea to ensure the quality assurance is there after the houses are built.
It has been slow progress, but I think there is definitely progress. It is all anecdotal-type information. We have had this program since 2002, which is more than five years ago. The amount of wood going into China at that point in time could have kept a sawmill going for maybe 10 days. The numbers that we have now being sent to China is enough to keep a couple of mills going year-round.
Mr. Rosser mentioned job creation. Again, these are all anecdotal figures; it is hard to tie an employment number to export figures. However, the numbers have increased phenomenally to China in the last number of years. The program was set up initially to diversify away from the United States markets and to create new markets. It is a long-term process, but we are making some progress.
Senator Fairbairn: I think it is fascinating. While doing that, would you be looking at other countries in the Far East, as well?
Mr. Jones: Yes, China has certainly been our prime focus, but we are also looking at Korea. The Japanese market was developed in the 1970s and 1980s, so our efforts in Japan right now are to ensure we do not lose any market share.
We have also looked at Vietnam as a potential emerging market. Taiwan is another market in the East. We looked at India for a short period. There were a lot of barriers in looking at the Indian market. There were very high tariffs, and the industry decided it did not want to pursue that market. Additionally, the climate for using wood and for building houses in India was not optimum, being moist and humid. It caused termite problems. Therefore, we had to develop preservatives to apply to houses to ensure the wood would perform properly in a climate such as India.
The whole Asian market has great potential.
Mr. Rosser: Our overseas programs, like the North American programs, are partnerships with industry. Therefore, in terms of what resources we deploy where, it is a collaborative process. Where we look at markets worldwide and target resources is based on where we see the greatest market potential, based on advice from industry partners.
Senator Plett: I have one observation and one question. Education and ensuring that all the players are singing from the same song sheet, has been talked about a number of times this morning.
I have not been on the committee as long as some of the other members, but every witness I have heard has talked about education insofar as the architects and engineers are concerned. I find it strange that we have not spent far more time in educating these people. They are the ones who are designing the buildings. Having been in construction all of my life, the architects, in large part, decide what kind of a building someone wants to build.
I am overly fond of legislation in terms of legislating how much wood I must put into a building if I want to build a building. I think that should be my decision. However, educating the architects and engineers, and having more classes, is certainly good. In a university, we could easily legislate that certain courses have to be taught, relating strictly to wood. If every architect and engineer in our country was versed in this, it would be an easy solution. If they are, in fact, as ignorant as we have been led to believe, I would think it would be simple to have 10 per cent of a five-year architectural program, for instance, dedicated to the building of wood construction. I am not sure why we would not focus more of our attention on that.
Mr. Rosser: We work directly with universities through this program and our partners. We also offer continuing education for those who are already in the business to get them to think about wood. For those who are in a university program, we are trying to expand the focus given to constructing with wood.
Our efforts have been promotional in nature; trying to encourage and motivate rather than compel that process.
The environmental properties of wood are key to increasing interest in its use. As wood becomes recognized as a material with a relatively modest carbon footprint that has environmental benefits relative have to substitute materials, I would expect that would increase the level of interest on the part of many students to look at possibilities for expanding use of wood.
Mr. Jones: I agree with you that ensuring that architects have the training is the key for the future. I am no expert on saying whether we could legislate X per cent of curriculum to be devoted to wood, but it is certainly a good thought that we could pursue. We could also see, through our program funding, how they could be working closer with the respective universities.
Senator Plett: I think that is the crux of this matter. Education has to be there in order for people to speak to each other about it. I will leave that with you.
On slide 5, you talk about the potential uses versus the current uses, and the potential gain in North America in dollars. These figures are so massive. I certainly would not want to suggest that this has been the case, but they almost look like they have been picked out of the air, when you double, triple and quadruple the potential usages.
Does the movement from 200 million board feet to 600 million board feet take into consideration that every building that we build, for which we could put wood into, uses all the wood that our codes would allow? What are those figures based on?
Mr. Rosser: They are estimates of the theoretical and realistic potential increases in wood consumption. Like any analysis, it is based on a certain set of assumptions. Of course, these are with respect to wood use outside of the residential sector.
Current North American consumption of lumber is 46 billion board feet. That is slightly over one-half of where that consumption figure would have been at the peak of the U.S. housing market.
The gains are substantial. In the case of non-residential construction, we are starting from a relatively low base. Our view is that there is substantial scope to increase those numbers, two-, three- or five-fold over time. My understanding is that the analysis made assumptions that were fairly conservative about the potential. Bear in mind that the potential increases over time as building codes and technologies change and we become able to use wood in new applications. As that happens, the potential changes and grows over time.
Mr. Jones: The numbers referred to were based on a market study done at the commencement of the program a couple of years ago. The numbers you see for current use of wood are from 2007 levels, which were difficult to get. We ended up subscribing to a large consumer-type study group in the U.S. that did the study on a North American basis for us. We determined estimates for commercial use of wood at that point in time.
The figure under the heading of realistic gain potential is conservative based on what was known regarding building codes at the time and knowing there could be changes to the building codes over time that would allow for more use. The final number is the maximum gain potential using the building codes at that time.
The numbers are estimates based on market studies done at the beginning of the program. We are tracking and benchmarking this on a two-year basis to see how the situation will have changed. We should get new benchmarking numbers at the end of this fiscal year. We made these projections and it will tell us how we are doing in those projections. These are long-term estimates to get the maximum potential gain. It will take at least 10 years in the North American market to make a significant difference on the use of wood in non-residential building.
Senator Plett: You touched on this point when you addressed one of Senator Fairbairn's questions. One reason why we did not pursue India was the termite problem. I asked a question concerning termites earlier this week.
Do we have any issues with termites or pests of any kind in Canada or North American? If there are such problems, what does the solution of treating the wood do to the green aspect of using wood?
Mr. Jones: Canada is largely fortunate in that we do not have a termite problem. Southern Ontario might have a bit of a problem, but it is certainly not a major problem in Canada. Termites are a big problem in the U.S. South, for example in Louisiana and Florida.
Research has been done with borates that could be used as a wood treatment product, which is environmentally benign. FP Innovations has done a fair amount of work to develop borates as a wood treatment. Termites can be counteracted, but as the treatment increases, so does the cost. It becomes more of a competitive, cost-benefit issue. Will it be economic to treat all these houses in the South? The U.S. has built houses with wood in the South for years. It can be done.
That was one of the obstacles we faced in India, where is hot and humid. We would have to use borates or another treatment, which caused concern in the industry.
Senator Grafstein: I apologize to you and the other members. I was at another committee.
This topic of lumber has haunted many of us in the Senate because of the softwood lumber crisis in which we have been directly involved. Although I come from Toronto, an urban centre, I discovered, to my surprise, that the largest industry in Ontario is not automobiles or anything else; it is the lumber business. The job losses there are horrendous, as you know, for many reasons including competitiveness and softening of United States' market.
By the way, we used Canadian wood in a village we built to help the people after the problems in Louisiana. We built a village called Canadaville — I named the village. It was built by Canadian carpenters using Canadian wood. The wood was treated; it is good; and people loved it. I want to tell you, as a commercial, that whoever undertook this did a good job.
I want to focus on diversification of trade. I see that you have targeted China. That is good. You have targeted South Korea. That is good. Have you targeted Taiwan?
Mr. Jones: Yes.
Senator Grafstein: For political reasons, I assume you do not put it in the papers, but that is a huge market.
Mr. Jones: It is. In the early days of the Canada Wood Program, we probably spent a little more on Taiwan. Mr. Rosser mentioned some of our market studies. Much of what we fund is driven by what industry wants to do and the industry has had somewhat of a cooling of their interests in Taiwan.
Senator Grafstein: It is a bipolar approach to China and Taiwan.
Mr. Jones: I do not know, but it is interesting. I received an email from a representative from a trade association in B.C. about a week ago. He was asking if more money could be made available for Taiwan. The numbers he gave me indicated that an additional 475 houses were built out of wood in the last year. It is a market that we have put some money into. It is not a large percentage of our program, but it is a potential market.
Senator Grafstein: Let me dig down a bit about to talk about the $10 million that has been made available from the government for, I assume, marketing.
Mr. Jones: I would not classify it as marketing per se. Depending on the individual, there are different perceptions of marketing. We call our programs market development. We provide funds for the generic benefit of the wood industry. We do not favour any one particular organization over another. When we say our programs are for market development, we are looking at entering the market and ensuring wood is recognized in a given market.
I like to refer to our approach as though we are looking at an upward curve on a graph. At the front end, the government needs to aid in establishing building codes. We provide resources to develop the building codes. As the market matures, you progress up the curve and get into training, builder acceptance and seminars. We promote the generic use of wood. As you start to move up the curve with the market continuing to mature, it becomes a fine line between what government and industry needs to do. This is where branding comes in. We can brand Canada as a good-quality supplier of wood. It is wood coming from a sustainably managed resource. It is a good material to build with. As you continue moving up the curve, marketing comes in. It becomes more company specific. Industry wants to promote its particular lumber as opposed to someone else's lumber.
Market development for us is largely creating the environment where wood could be used in the industry.
Senator Grafstein: On that point, I will give you some examples. Idaho had a problem with respect to the competitive selling of meat, in particular, steaks. They decided to go from specific suppliers to the generic. The state set up a series of retail stores called Omaha Steaks. The New Zealanders did it with lamb. The Dutch did it with respect to cheese. The Irish did it with respect to Kerrygold Butter. If you go to Paris today, you use Irish butter. That was all marketing.
It strikes me this is something the department can take a lead on, with specific examples of success, particularly in Taiwan, China and I also mentioned India. I know it is a very diverse market. We have all been to these places. However, the name ``Canada'' is a fantastic brand, per se. Just use the word Canada and everyone treats you like you are part of the Royal Family. It is not us as senators or parliamentarians, it is the brand Canada. I do not understand why we do not do that.
Mr. Jones: I hope I did not mislead you. We are trying to create the Canada brand for wood. Through our Canada Wood Program, we have a recognizable symbol of a maple leaf in the shape of a house.
Some of our market studies have shown that the brand has become more recognizable among the Chinese and Koreans. However, we are still at that stage where we are trying to get a general acceptance of wood. Then the brand will follow.
Mr. Rosser: In addition to our wood promotion efforts, I think we talked earlier about some of our environmental promotion efforts, as well. Branding Canada and Canadian forest products, as not only being high quality, but also as sustainably produced and environmentally preferred is an area in which we have become much more active in overseas markets in the past year or two.
Senator Grafstein: Is it cutting?
Mr. Rosser: Again, it involves long-term effort. Market research, such as surveys of major buyers of products, suggests that the message is starting to resonate, but it is long-term work.
Senator, you alluded to a disaster relief project in Louisiana in the wake of Katrina, I assume. One thing we are doing in partnership with the government of British Columbia in China right now is constructing a number of wood buildings in Sichuan province, which was struck by the earthquake.
Senator Grafstein: Where in Sichuan province?
Mr. Jones: It is in Mianyang. We built a school that was just opened. In addition, we are building the Beichuan Leigu Town Central Elderly Care Centre in the heart of the earthquake zone. We have received a lot of goodwill from the people of China. We have also received good publicity concerning the use of wood and its qualities under seismic conditions.
Senator Grafstein: Back to China for a moment and the use of the Internet. Both in South Korea, China and certainly in India and Taiwan, the number of huts in use in all those areas is growing rapidly. In other words, if you took a look at marketing in China five years ago compared to today, they probably have more households using computers in China than in Canada and we are the most wired country in the world. About 86 per cent of our homes are wired for Internet. However, China's numbers are growing by leaps and bounds and it is the same with Taiwan and India. Has the department looked at Internet marketing as a separate discipline, and allocating some funds for that type of marketing?
Mr. Jones: Through the Canada Wood Program, we do have a website set up that is translated into a number of different languages, depending on the market.
Senator Grafstein: That is here.
Mr. Jones: It is an Internet site that is available worldwide. I do not have the numbers off the top of my head but it is accessed by the Chinese market. On that website, we have information on the qualities of wood and the attributes of using wood, and we advertise upcoming seminars and trade shows where wood can be viewed. It is translated into various languages. Right now, that is the extent of what we have done.
Senator Grafstein: I will not pursue this longer; I appreciate your indulgence. Perhaps, you could give the committee that information. It might be useful as a recommendation, because it strikes me the Internet is a fast and effective way to market and get into those markets. There are some specific examples I could give but I will not belabour this at this time. Thank you for your indulgence.
Senator Finley: One of the problems of being last is that everyone else has asked questions. I will try to ask questions rather than make speeches.
To follow up on some of the prior questions, particularly one that Senator Mercer asked about regarding academic institutions, are Laval and UBC the two leading academic institutions leading the charge on the use of forest products?
Mr. Jones: The University of New Brunswick is very active, as well; the University of Toronto has a fairly good faculty. We are doing a lot of engineering work with Concordia and McGill in Quebec.
There are a number of schools that are partnering through a number of our programs.
Senator Finley: Are these primarily engineering and research-type facilities, or are there business applications like MBA or parts of a MBA program? In other words, how are the business aspects of the forestry business getting out to the students and general marketplace?
Mr. Jones: Based on my knowledge of these schools, the one in my mind that, probably, has the best program geared that way is UBC, although I think some of the other schools do. Perhaps, Mr. Rosser knows.
Mr. Rosser: That is an interesting suggestion. Through production and market programs, our innovation programs have partnerships of one kind or another with universities across the country. Mr. Jones mentioned some of them; there are many more. There are a number of schools, certainly the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia among them, offer forest economics programs. I am not aware of any formal partnerships with business schools related to the forest sector but that is an interesting suggestion.
Senator Finley: Will cross-laminated lumber be a finished product exported by Canada, or will we sell or export the raw lumber to be processed overseas in another country such as China or Germany?
Mr. Jones: The goal is to have the manufacturing facilities here in Canada. Currently, no one makes it on the commercial scale and size. There are a number of small presses and facilities. For example, Canfor has one in B.C. Structurlam in Penticton is looking at gearing up its facility to manufacture cross-laminated timber.
Right now, if we wanted to build a building out of cross-laminated timber, we would have to import it from overseas. There are a number of firms producing it in Europe. However, we have a steering committee consisting of all of the universities that are interested in cross-laminated timber and the industry itself. We are developing a strategy for the use of cross-laminated lumber in Canada. The ultimate desire would be that there would be an uptake on it here in Canada, where we would produce it here and use it here.
Mr. Rosser: We have talked about our exports of wood products and lumber. Yes, we export a physical product and hope to export more of it. However, we also think of this as Canada exporting solutions, building technology and building systems. It is not just sending a commodity in a container to China, but coming up with innovations and products that are better suited to the particularities of the Chinese market, for example, or other markets.
In the case of cross-laminated timber, it is early days. I hope that we do not simply begin producing that product in Canada either for the domestic market or for export, but rather that we take that technology and combine it with Canadian innovations to create new products that would be attractive in various markets around the world.
Senator Finley: I wish to follow up on one of Senator Grafstein's points regarding markets in various countries around the world. Do you have any marketing initiatives in the U.K.?
Mr. Jones: Yes. Through the Canada Wood Program, the United Kingdom receives approximately 10 per cent of the funds that we have for Europe. In the past years, funds have been targeted to what we are calling the Super E program, which is a Canadian technology that uses highly energy efficient housing. Senators may recall its predecessor, the R2000 house. The Super E house is exported to the U.K. The amount of money that we spent in the U.K. is tied to promoting the super energy efficient Canadian house.
Senator Finley: That segues into my last question on a point that Senator Eaton made, namely, the question of cohesion. A couple of weeks ago I asked who is the go-to guy for trees or forest or lumber. There does not really seem to be such a person or department. There is not a master puppeteer or someone who has written the grand plan of where we have to go with this.
It strikes me that the super efficient house, The Super E should be going to the climate conference in Copenhagen. Perhaps the people from Environment Canada along with your ministry, should tells the people at the conference that Canadians are working on ways to improve the environment in other ways than just a carbon tax or carbon trade program.
Is there a way, perhaps, that the government, or we as a Senate committee, could facilitate some forum that would have all of this expertise in the same place, at the same time, to produce some kind of grand strategy that we all could understand so that people could see it and read about it? I would like your opinion on this whole issue of cohesion and interface.
Mr. Rosser: One thing I would say about the wood products industry in relation to other resource sectors is that it is an industry — and this is true worldwide; it is not unique to Canada — that is fairly fragmented. Even though we have a number of large producers of lumber and other wood products, in fact some of the largest producers in the world are Canadian-based countries; it is an industry that has many relatively small firms that are involved in the industry. As a result, it has a history of being a little fractious. There are all kinds of different players at a governmental level.
I suppose one of the reasons why the government is involved in market development efforts is because in an industry with thousands of firms it is that much harder to organize collective marketing efforts, for example, than it would be in an industry that is dominated by three or four players. Because of its fragmented nature, it has a history of not being as cohesive as it might be. Through some of the coalitions, we have talked about this morning and through some of the partnerships, we like to think that we are bringing greater cohesion to the industry. I would not claim that it is always perfect, however.
You alluded to the Copenhagen conference and the environmental reputation issue. At the Copenhagen conference there will be side events that touch on some of these themes that try to raise awareness amongst negotiators and policy- makers about the carbon properties of wood and wood building products. I believe that the UN agencies such as the food and agriculture organization are involved in the conference in this way.
Mr. Jones: Mr. Rosser is right. Through the United Nations there is a concerted effort to have all the timber- producing countries singing from the same song sheet at Copenhagen in December. Last week, in Geneva there was a major gathering of the timber committee, which consists of members from the European Union, Canada and the United States, talking about green building. The next forum — and it is interesting you raise this — will be in Canada, in Quebec, in April of next year. The intent is to have all of the timber-producing countries, through the United Nations, come to Canada to discuss mechanisms to further advance the attributes of wood but through the use of having a very good carbon footprint and through the climate change aspects.
The Government of Canada, through our department, is helping sponsor that particular conference in Quebec City next April.
Senator Finley: Could you let the committee know some of the details of that conference?
Mr. Jones: Sure.
The Chair: Do you envision a Canada round table that includes engineers, architects, schools, provincial trade schools? Such a round table, led by the Canadian government, could sensitize these groups on Canada's Wood First programs. We understand that each jurisdiction has its own program and that the responsibility of forestry is the responsibility of the provinces. However, because of the crisis and the slowdown, we can permit ourselves to make recommendations to multi-level governments in order to find the vision of tomorrow. I call it green gold. What are your comments on a Canada round table?
Mr. Rosser: Various bodies bring together governments and educational institutions with an interest in this area. I understand there to be a body that brings together the deans of faculties of forestry from universities across the country.
At a governmental level, there is a federal-provincial-territorial body known as the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers that often serves as a forum for dialogue about various efforts across jurisdictions to promote the use of wood. Less formally, on a bilateral basis, we as an organization at various levels have dialogue regularly with provincial counterparts. Through some of those bodies, the type of discussion that I think you are proposing does take place. To my knowledge, however, there is no single body that brings together representatives of architectural and engineering faculties to talk specifically about wood and wood use.
The Chair: An emerging, viable industry is hardwood. Is sufficient research being conducted on hardwood? I know you have talked about softwood and you have named different universities, but in the hardwood industry can you tell the committee of the research and development on the hardwood industry and the emerging markets?
Mr. Rosser: As a general comment, certainly when we are talking about lumber, the bulk of our exports are softwood. However, as a country, we produce and export a range of hardwood products from commodity and product structural panels to high-quality flooring and other products.
Mr. Jones: With respect to research, FPInnovations has a section designed specifically for hardwood research. They have partnered with some organizations here in the Outaouais, as well as with other universities in Quebec.
The Chair: Can you provide us with information on what role your department plays in this area?
Mr. Jones: Our role is to provide the funding to FPInnovations to do the research.
The Chair: On page 6 of your presentation, it says, ``influence wood use in over 55 NRC projects.'' I presume the NRC is the National Research Council?
Mr. Jones: It means ``non-residential construction.''
Mr. Rosser: I apologize; it was perhaps a little confusing, but the acronym stands for non-residential construction.
The Chair: I want to state that NRC is performing research and development across Canada. What role do they play? This is a comment with some experience. When I was minister of housing for New Brunswick, too often we saw research and development that sat on a shelf. I prefer research and development that helps to market the product.
If you cannot answer this question, please provide the committee with information in respect of the role of NRC in the present research and development. Please provide us with information concerning NRC's role in enabling those partners and stakeholders to develop an end product and to market their research.
Mr. Rosser: As a general comment, I take your point about the importance of moving research out of a laboratory setting and into the marketplace. We have talked several times this morning about some of the support that we provide to innovation in the forest sector. In that body of work, through Canada's Economic Action Plan, we have new funding to do precisely that. We are able to take some of the innovations where we have been funding research over the past several years and pilot them in a commercial setting with an industrial partner.
At least in the context of Natural Resources Canada's programming, we are trying to emphasize that stage of the innovation chain and the importance of moving out of a laboratory towards commercial scale production.
In terms of the involvement of the National Research Council, Mr. Jones may be able to speak to the specifics, but my understanding is that they do have direct involvement in the development of the model of the National Building Code of Canada. We can certainly get you information on the role they play in this area.
Mr. Jones: In addition, with respect to much of the research that I referred to earlier that NRCan funds to FPInnovations, some of the collaborating partnerships are with the National Research Council. Specifically, when I was talking about cross-laminated timber, through the NSERC program, funding is provided to the University of New Brunswick, which is the lead. There is, therefore, quite a relationship with the NRC. Also, the cross-laminated timber steering committee, which ultimately looks at how we market or develop a Canadian strategy, would have involvement from the NRC.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Rosser and Mr. Jones, on behalf of the committee, I thank you very much for appearing. Your presentations were enlightening and informative. In order to follow up on some of the questions, if you would like to provide us with additional information, please do so.
(The committee adjourned.)